🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6gdvgb$mcj$1@usenet87.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
(HiThere) wrote:

> In article <gall-0704981304270001@usrts1m7.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca 
> (Norman Gall) wrote:

> >The sanctions are, but the threat of force is present before (just as it
> >is in the case of forcing landowners to not consider sexual orientation in
> >deliberations as to whom they will rent). Denying someone a fair shake
> >(without adequate grounds) is prejudice and an initiation of force akin to
> >entering into a contract in bad faith.

> How is it *bad faith* when the terms of the proposed contract haven't even 
> been discussed? 

I think this is too narrow a view. We have to look to the background in
which the proposed contract exists - contracts are not negotiated in a
vacuum.

> It's bad faith if the bigot says he will not 
> discriminate, or leads someone to believe he won't--but it is simple honesty 
> if he states that he will. 

But my point is that everyone has a moral responsibility to given everyone
else a fair shake and it is too important to let large numbers of people
opt out.

> The assumption that he won't discriminate is an 
> assumption that is--if anything--based on terms set beforehand, by 
> others--with no regard to the honesty or personally held values of the bigot.

That's right, and without it, life become uncessarily complicated.  We
also have the idea that everyone will obey the criminal law and we don't
care whether they even know what they've done is a crime.

> > I would argue that you owe them the moral
> >duty of trating them at all times as an end-in-themselves rther than a
> >means to an end; this would require treating them fairly.  And that they
> >simply 'don't like fags' isn't good enough.

> But isn't the applicant treating the potential employer as a means to an 
> end--and what's unfair about that? 

Well, we'd have to do a lot of Kant to convince you that it is always
unfair to treat someone as a means to an end.  I'll drop it.

> Should an employee be forced to work for a bigot?

If they have a contract, they have to discharge the contract. If the bigot
lets them out, ok.  All employment contracts expire and/or have escape
clauses else it is slavery - and I'd bet even you think the law should not
uphold contracts such as these.

> >> >However, this is an argument against the CCC in whole. 
> >
> >> Yep
> >
> >> > We have laws
> >> >requiring people to tell the truth when questioned by police and in a
> >> >court of law. Are you arguing that all of these laws are unjustified?
> >
> >> No.
> >
> >How do you reconcile asserting an argument that questions the authority of
> >the CCC *and* say that you are not arguing against laws which are
> >contained therein? This is prima facie contradictory.

> No, it's not. Right and wrong exist independant of the CCC.

But we aren't talking about right and wrong here - we're talking about
authority - which is really what your argument boils down to. If the CCC
has authority and  your argument is an argument against is in toto (as you
say above) *no* criminal law can be justified. Well, the law might be
morally justified, but the Crown cannot enforce it since you say the CCC
has no authority. This in effect neuters the CCC.

> >But this is a danger in any system that is democratic to any extent.  Only
> >in some sort of totalitarian regime that bought the notion that the gov't
> >has no authority to tell anyone what to do would this not be a danger.

> There is an non-totalitarian alternative--and that is to constitutionally 
> limit the extent and power of government to it's core function of protecting 
> people against the initiation of force.

But then we have to have the People or the Court decide what counts as
force and you are in the same conundrum again. If the People decide that
refusing to rent to someone on non-economic grounds constitutes force,
you've got what we have now (somewhat). If the People decide that swatting
your wife in the mouth when she 'talks back' does not constitute force -
somehting like spanking a child, maybe? - then you've got a mighty big
problem on your hands.

> My overall point is that although it 
> can be argued that there is a proper role for gov't (although David Freidman 
> puts a telling case to the contrary in his *Machinery of Freedom* {much data 
> available on the web})--you are right that this is a danger in democratic 
> systems because such sytems can become effectively totalitarian by majority 
> fiat.

And as such are no different or better than what we have now.

> >> >So what? Unless you are questioning the idea of passing laws writ large,
> >> >this missed the point entirely.
> >
> >> Not exactly, but I am questioning any number of laws writ large--but not 
> >> bevcause they _are_ writ large, There are other criteria.
> >
> >Well yes.  It seems to me that the criteria that you are using is whether
> >the law 'tells people what to do'. But even regulative law does this.  "If
> >yu want to get married, do this."
 
> No, that's not the criteria, The criteria is whether or not the law 
> inhibits action when what they are doing is not an initiation of force. 

See above - what consitutes an application of force?

> I do 
> not support the government asserting regulations on what is a *proper* 
> marriage, for instance--I think they should saty out of it.

I'd agree with you here. but for utterly different reasons.
 

Norm Gall

-- 
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge 
 without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.    Samuel Johnson